Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ECCOMAS 2004
P. Neittaanmäki, T. Rossi, S. Korotov, E. Oñate, J. Périaux, and D. Knörzer (eds.)
Jyväskylä, 24–28 July 2004
Key words: Option pricing, Lévy process, jump process, integro-differential equations,
inverse problem, model calibration, regularization, entropy, viscosity solutions.
Abstract. Observation of sudden, large movements in the prices of financial assets has
led to the use of stochastic processes with discontinuous trajectories – jump processes –
as models for financial assets. Exponential Lévy models provide an analytically tractable
subclass of models with jumps and the flexibility in choice of the Lévy process allows to
calibrate the model to market prices of options and reproduce a wide variety of implied
volatility skews/smiles.
We discuss the characterization of prices of European and barrier options in exponential
Lévy models in terms of solutions of partial integro-differential equations (PIDEs). These
equations involve, in addition to a second-order differential operator, a non-local integral
term which requires specific treatment both at the theoretical and numerical level. The
study of regularity of option prices in such models shows that, unlike the diffusion case,
option price can exhibit lack of smoothness. The proper relation between option prices and
PIDEs is then expressed using the notion of viscosity solution. Numerical solution of the
PIDE allows efficient computation of option prices.
The identification of exponential Lévy models from option prices leads to an inverse
problem for such PIDEs. We describe a regularization method based on relative entropy
and its numerical implementation. This inversion algorithm, which allows to extract an
implied Lévy measure from a set of option prices, is illustrated by numerical examples.
1
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
1 INTRODUCTION
The shortcomings of diffusion models in representing the risk related to large market
movements have led to the development of various option pricing models with jumps,
where large returns are represented as discontinuities in prices as a function of time.
Models with jumps allow for a more realistic representation of price dynamics and a
greater flexibility in modelling and have been the focus of much recent work [11].
Exponential Lévy models, where the market price of an asset is represented as the
exponential St = exp(rt + Xt ) of a Lévy process Xt , offer analytically tractable examples
of positive jump processes which are simple enough to allow a detailed study both in
terms of statistical properties and as models for risk-neutral dynamics i.e. option pricing
models. Option pricing with exponential Lévy models is discussed in [11, 17, 25, 36]. The
flexibility of choice of the Lévy process X allows to calibrate the model to market prices of
options and reproduce a wide variety of implied volatility skews/smiles [12]. The Markov
property of the price allows to express prices of European and barrier options in terms
of solutions of partial integro-differential equations (PIDEs) with a non-local integral
term which requires specific treatment both at the theoretical and numerical level [15].
Deterministic computational methods can then be used to compute option prices [14, 27].
We present here a summary of our recent work on partial integro-differential equations
(PIDEs) for option pricing in exponential Lévy models and related inverse problems aris-
ing in model calibration. Exponential Lévy models are presented in section 2. Under
some regularity conditions, the value of European and barrier options can be represented
in terms of solutions to an integro-differential equations (section 3). However, in section 4
we show that such regularity conditions fail to hold in many models used in finance. This
prompts us to take a closer look, in section 5, at the relation between option prices using
the notion of viscosity solution. The calibration of such models to market prices requires
extracting the model parameters – the Lévy measure and the diffusion coefficient – from
a set of observed option prices. We discuss this ill-posed inverse problem in section 6 and
propose a regularization scheme based on penalization by relative entropy, which enables
to construct an arbitrage–free risk–neutral exponential Lévy models compatible with a
given set of option prices. Section 7 outlines some directions for future research.
2
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
where σ ≥ 0 and γ are real constants and ν is a positive Radon measure on R − {0}
verifying
+1
x ν(dx) < ∞,
2
ν(dx) < ∞.
−1 |x|>1
3
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
St = S0 ert+Xt .
Here Xt is a Lévy process (under Q) with characteristic triplet (σ,γ,ν), and the interest
rate r is included for ease of notation. The absence of arbitrage then imposes that Ŝt =
St e−rt = exp Xt is a martingale, which is equivalent to the following conditions on the
triplet (σ,γ,ν):
σ2
ν(dy)e < ∞ , γ = γ(σ, ν) = − − (ey − 1 − y1|y|≤1 )ν(dy).
y
(4)
|y|>1 2
We will assume this relation in the sequel. The infinitesimal generator LX then becomes:
∞
σ2 ∂ 2f ∂f ∂f
X
L f (x) = [ 2 − ] + ν(dy) [f (x + y) − f (x) − (ey − 1) (x)].
2 ∂x ∂x −∞ ∂x
We will also use the notation Yt = rt + Xt . Yt is then a strong Markov process with
infinitesimal generator
∂f
Lf = LX f + r . (5)
∂x
While in principle one can have both a non-zero diffusion component σ = 0 and an
infinite activity jump component, in practice the models encountered in the financial
literature are of two types: either we combine a non-zero diffusion part σ > 0 with a finite
activity jump process (in this case one speaks of a jump-diffusion model) or one totally
suppresses the diffusion part, in which case frequent small jumps are needed to generate
realistic trajectories: these are infinite activity pure jump models. Different exponential
Lévy models proposed in the financial modelling literature simply correspond to different
choices for the Lévy measure ν :
4
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
n
– Superposition of Poisson processes: ν = k=1 λk δyk where δx is a measure that
affects unit mass to point x.
– Kou model [24] : ν(x) = pα1 e−α1 x 1x>0 + (1 − p)α2 eα2 x 1x<0
• Infinite activity models: σ = 0 and ν(dx) = ∞
Introducing the change of variable τ = T −t, x = ln(S/S0 ), and defining: h(x) = H(S0 ex )
and u(τ, x) = erτ C(T − τ, S0 ex ), then
If h is in the domain of the generator L given by (5), then from (2) we see that u is the
solution of the Cauchy problem:
∂u
= Lu, on (0, T ] × R; u(0, x) = h(x), x ∈ R. (7)
∂τ
However in all cases of interest in finance, h is not smooth and does not belong to the
domain of L. More generally, by applying the Ito formula to u(t, Xt ) between 0 and T
one can show [7, 15, 31] that any smooth solution u ∈ C 1,2 of (7) has the probabilistic
representation (6):
Proposition 1 (Feynman–Kac representation for Lévy processes). Assume ∃a >
0 such that |x|>1 exp(a|x|)ν(dx) < ∞. If u ∈ C 1,2 is a classical solution of (7) and its
derivatives are bounded by a polynomial function of x, uniformly in t ∈ [0, T ], then u has
the probabilistic representation (6).
1
Also called ”truncated Lévy flights” in the physics literature [23, 10] or CGMY processes [8] in the
finance literature.
5
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
The conditions on u and ν ensure that u(t, Xt ) can be represented as a martingale plus
a finite variation process; they can be weakened in various ways, see [7, 15, 33].
Similarly, barrier options can be represented in terms of solutions to initial-boundary
value problems. Consider for instance an up-and-out call option with maturity T , strike
K, and (upper) barrier U > S0 . The terminal payoff is given by HT = (ST − K)+ 1T <θ ,
where θ = inf{t ≥ 0 | St ≥ U } is the first moment when the barrier is crossed.
Due to the strong Markov property of Lévy processes, it is possible to express the value
of the option Ct = e−r(T −t) E[HT |Ft ] as a deterministic function of time t and current stock
value St before the barrier is crossed. Namely, for any (t, S) ∈ [0, T ]×(0, ∞) we can define
where H(S) = (S − K)+ and θt = inf{s ≥ t | SeYs−t ≥ U }, the first exit time after t.
Then, Ct = Cb (t, St )1t≤θ for all t ≤ T . As in the European case, by going to the log
variables we define
Again, if ub is smooth the Itô formula can be used to show that ub is a solution of the
following initial-boundary-value problem:
∂u
= Lu, on (0, T ] × (−∞, log(U/S0 )),
∂τ
u(0, x) = h(x), x < log(U/S0 ); u(τ, x) = 0, x ≥ log(U/S0 ).
Due to the nonlocal nature of the integral term, ”boundary” conditions have to be imposed
not only at the boundary but outside the boundary.2 Prices of down-and-out or double
barrier options verify similar PIDEs with Dirichlet boundary conditions. The correspon-
dence between the analytic and probabilistic properties discussed above is summarized in
Table 1.
6
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
Green function with zero Density of stopped process e−r(T −t) × Gamma of
boundary condition for up-and-out call
x≥b
7
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
The characteristic function of Xt , the Fourier transform of its distribution, is given by:
u2 σ 2 κ t
Φt (u) = (1 + − iθκu)− κ (10)
2
Φt (.) decays as |u|−2t/κ when |u| → ∞: the decay exponent increases with t. The funda-
mental solution ρ(t, x) of the PIDE therefore has a degree of regularity which increases
gradually with t: for t ∈ (pκ/2, (p + 1)κ/2), the fundamental solution ρ(t, .) is in C p−1 (R)
but not C p (R). For t < κ/2, ρ(t, .) is not even locally bounded. As a consequence, the
value of a European binary option defined by the payoff h(x) = 1x≥x0 is continuous but
not differentiable for t < κ/2.
The case of barrier options is even less regular. As the following example illustrates,
if no restriction is imposed on the Lévy process, the value of a barrier option – which is
formally the solution of the Dirichlet problem with zero boundary conditions – can even
turn out to be discontinuous at all times:
Example 2. Consider Xt = Nt1 (λ1 )−Nt2 (λ2 ) where Nti are independent Poisson processes
with jump intensities λ1 and λ2 . Let, for simplicity, r = 0. If λ2 = λ1 e then the
corresponding price process St = S0 eXt is a martingale.
Consider now a knock-out option which pays 1 at time T if St has not crossed the
barrier U > S0 before T , and 0 otherwise:
HT = 1T <θ(S0 ) ,
where θ(S) = inf {t ≥ 0 | SeXt ≥ U } is the first exit time if the process starts from S.
Let us show that the initial option value
8
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
Consider the following possibility: NT1 = 1 et NT2 = 0, that is, there was one positive and
no negative jumps. In this case, if St starts from S ∗ − ε it stays below U , while starting
from S ∗ + ε it crosses the barrier. This means that θ(S ∗ + ε) ≤ T < θ(S ∗ − ε). So,
This example is a finite activity process without diffusion component. As noted above,
this case is not the interesting one in financial modelling. The following result shows
that in fact, in most cases of interest, the option price is a continuous function of the
underlying :
For a proof, see [15]. Denote by by Cp+ ([0, T ] × R) the set of measurable functions on
[0, T ] × R with polynomial growth of degree p at +∞ and bounded on [0, T ] × R− :
The pricing function can be shown to have polynomial growth at infinity if the payoff has
this property:
In general, one cannot hope for more than Lipschitz continuity; in particular uniform
bounds on derivatives, such as the ones required in [31], do not hold in cases of interest
in finance where the payoff function H is not smooth, as for call or put options. In these
cases, verification theorems such as the Proposition 1 do not apply and the option pricing
function should be seen as a viscosity solution of the PIDE (7).
9
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
literature are pure jump models with σ = 0, for which such results are not available. In
fact, in pure jump models with finite variation Equation (7) is formally of first order in
the price variable so the effect of the jump term is more like a convection term rather
than a diffusion term. A notion of solution which yields existence and uniqueness for
such equations without requiring non-degeneracy of coefficients or a priori knowledge of
smoothness of solutions is the notion of viscosity solution, introduced by Crandall & Lions
for PDEs [16] and extended to integro-differential equations of the type considered here
in [1, 3, 32, 35, 37].3
Denote by U SC (respectively LSC) the class of upper semicontinuous (respectively
lower semicontinuous) functions u : [0, T ) × R → R. Let O = (l, u) ⊆ R be an open
interval, ∂O = {l, u} its boundary, and g ∈ Cp+ ([0, T ] × R \ O) a continuous function.
Consider the following initial-boundary value problem on [0, T ] × R:
∂u
= Lu, on (0, T ] × O, (13)
∂τ
u(0, x) = h(x), x ∈ O; u(τ, x) = g(τ, x), x∈
/ O. (14)
Definition 1 (Viscosity solution). A function u ∈ U SC is a viscosity subsolution of
(13)–(14) if for any test function ϕ ∈ C 2 ([0, T ] × R) ∩ Cp+ ([0, T ] × R) and any global
maximum point (τ, x) ∈ [0, T ] × R of u − ϕ, the following properties are verified:
∂ϕ
if (τ, x) ∈ (0, T ] × O, − Lϕ (τ, x) ≤ 0, (15)
∂τ
∂ϕ
if τ = 0, x ∈ O, min{ − Lϕ (τ, x), u(τ, x) − h(x)} ≤ 0,
∂τ
∂ϕ
if τ ∈ (0, T ], x ∈ ∂O, min{ − Lϕ (τ, x), u(τ, x) − g(τ, x)} ≤ 0,
∂τ
if x ∈/ O, u(τ, x) ≤ g(τ, x). (16)
A function u ∈ LSC is a viscosity supersolution of (13)–(14) if for any test function
ϕ ∈ C 2 ([0, T ] × R) ∩ Cp+ ([0, T ] × R) and any global minimum point (τ, x) ∈ [0, T ] × R of
u − ϕ, we have:
∂ϕ
if (τ, x) ∈ (0, T ] × O, − Lϕ (τ, x) ≥ 0,
∂τ
∂ϕ
if τ = 0, x ∈ O, max{ − Lϕ (τ, x), u(τ, x) − h(x)} ≥ 0,
∂τ
∂ϕ
if τ ∈ (0, T ], x ∈ ∂O, max{ − Lϕ (τ, x), u(τ, x) − g(τ, x)} ≥ 0,
∂τ
if x ∈/ O, u(τ, x) ≥ g(τ, x).
3
Definitions of viscosity solutions in these papers vary in the choice of test functions; we present here
a version which is suitable for option pricing applications.
10
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
Note that the initial and boundary conditions are verified in a viscosity sense. The def-
inition also includes the case of initial value problems: O = R. Existence and uniqueness
of viscosity solutions for such parabolic integro-differential equations are discussed in [1] in
the case where ν is a finite measure and in [3] and [32] for general Lévy measures. Growth
conditions other than u ∈ Cp+ can be considered (see e.g. [1, 3]) with additional conditions
on the Lévy measure ν. The main tool for showing uniqueness is the comparison principle:
if u, v are viscosity solutions and u(0, x) ≥ v(0, x) then ∀τ ∈ [0, T ], u(τ, x) ≥ v(τ, x). This
property can be extended to subsolutions and supersolutions in the following sense:
Proofs and extensions can be found in [1] for the case where ν is a bounded measure;
the case of a general Lévy measure has been recently treated in [22].
The following result, whose proof is given in [15] shows that, under rather general
conditions on the Lévy triplet and the payoff function, values of European and barrier
options can be expressed in terms of (viscosity) solutions of (13)–(14):
• The forward value of a European option u(τ, x) defined by (6) is the unique viscosity
solution of the Cauchy problem (7) (that is (13)–(14) with O = R).
• Let ub (τ, x) be the forward value of a knockout (single or double) barrier option
defined by (8). If ub (τ, x) is continuous then it is the unique viscosity solution of
(13)–(14) (with g ≡ 0).
The hypotheses above on the payoff function apply to put options, single-barrier knock-
out puts, double barrier knockout options and also to the log-contract. One can then re-
trieve call options by put-call parity. For barrier options with rebate, the zero boundary
condition has to be replaced by the value of the rebate, as in the case of diffusion models.
A discussion of sufficient conditions for continuity of value functions for barrier options is
given in [15].
A popular method for pricing European options in exp-Lévy models is the Fourier
method proposed by Carr & Madan [9], which is the method of choice when analytic
11
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
expressions are available for the characteristic function of the Lévy process Xt . However
this method does not extend to barrier options or American options. Numerical solution
of PIDEs allows efficient pricing of European and barrier options on assets with jumps
and does not require analytic formulae for characteristic functions. Numerical methods
for PIDEs are discussed in [14, 27]. In particular the notion of viscosity solution turns
out to be convenient for analyzing the convergence of finite difference schemes, without
requiring smoothness with respect to the underlying [14].
12
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
where wi are positive weights chosen to balance the magnitude of the different terms;
a typical choice is to take wi−1 as the Black–Scholes Vega of the call option (Ti , Ki ).
Gradient–based methods are then used to perform the numerical minimization in (19).
Unfortunately this is a nonlinear, nonconvex optimization problem where gradient meth-
ods may give erroneous results. Figure 1 shows the shape of the nonlinear least squares
criterion in the case of two popular models, the Merton model (left) and the Variance
Gamma model (right), computed for DAX index options. In the Merton model we ob-
serve a continuum of minima corresponding to the difficulty of distinguishing, using the
option prices, the effect of jumps and volatility. In the Variance Gamma case we observe
two quite distinct parameter sets giving similar calibration performance. At a theoretical
Quadratic pricing error for Merton model: DAX options.
1000
B
900
800
700 5
x 10
600 2
500
1.8
400
1.6
300
1.4
200
1.2 A
100
1
0
3 0.8 0.25
0.6
2 0.2
8
7
6
1 5
4 0.15
3
0 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 2
0.21 0.2 0.19 0.18 1
0.23 0.22
0.24 0 0.1 σ
Jump intensity
Diffusion coefficient κ
Figure 1: Sum of squared differences between market prices (DAX options maturing in 10 weeks) and
model prices in the Merton model (left) and the variance gamma model as a function of σ and κ, the
third parameter being fixed.
level, while conditions can be derived [13] for well-posedness of solutions for the nonlinear
least square problem (19) they turn out to be rather restrictive and imply that the range
of model parameters is already quite well known a priori.
N
(σ ∗ , ν ∗ ) = arg inf wi |C σ,ν (t = 0, S0 , Ti , Ki ) − C0∗ (Ti , Ki )|2 + αF (σ, ν) (20)
σ,ν
i=1
13
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
Problem (20) can be understood as that of finding an exponential Lévy model satisfying
the conditions (1), which is closest in some sense – defined by F – to a prior exp-Lévy
model. The convex term αF is called a regularization term and is used to make the
problem well-posed. The regularization parameter α > 0 is chosen to ensure a tradeoff
between precision and stability [19].
A common choice for the regularization term is the relative entropy or Kullback Leibler
distance E(Q, Q0 ) of the the pricing measure Q with respect to the prior model Q0 :
Q dQ
F (σ, ν) = E(Q, Q0 ) = E ln
dQ0
In addition to being convex, relative entropy acts also as a barrier function for the posi-
tivity and absolute continuity constraints on (σ, ν). In the case of (risk-neutral) exp-Lévy
models, the relative entropy is easily computable in terms of the volatility σ and calibrated
Lévy measure ν [21, Theorem IV.4.39]:
∞ 2
T
E(Q, Q0 ) = H(ν) = 2 (e − 1)(ν − ν0 )(dx)
x
2σ −∞
∞
dν dν dν
+T ln +1− ν0 (dx) (21)
−∞ dν0 dν0 dν0
N
J (ν) = αH(ν) + wi (C0ν (Ti , Ki ) − C0∗ (Ti , Ki ))2 (22)
i=1
where H(ν) is the relative entropy of the risk neutral measure with respect to the prior,
whose expression is given by (21).
The functional (22) consists of two parts: the relative entropy functional, which is
convex in its argument ν and the quadratic pricing error which measures the precision
14
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
of calibration. The coefficient α, called regularization parameter defines the relative im-
portance of the two terms: it characterizes the trade-off between prior knowledge of the
Lévy measure and the information contained in option prices.
Regularization using relative entropy allows to obtain existence of solutions and conti-
nuity with respect to market data (input option prices) [13]:
• Existence: for each data set C ∗ = (C ∗ (Ti , Ki ), i = 1..N ) there exists an exponential
Lévy model Q which is a solution of the regularized calibration problem (22).
• The solution(s) depend continuously on the market prices: Let {C n }n≥1 and C ∗ be
data sets of option prices such that
C n − C ∗ → 0.
n→∞
For each n ≥ 1, let Qn be a solution of the calibration problem (22) with data C n
and prior Q0 . Then (Qn )n≥1 has a weakly converging subsequence and the limit of
every convergent subsequence of (Qn )n≥1 is a solution of calibration problem (22)
with data C ∗ and prior Q0 .
N
0 = wi |Cibid − Ciask |2 (23)
i=1
Now let (σ, να ) be the solution of (22) for a given regularization parameter α > 0. Then
the a posteriori quadratic pricing error is given by (σ, να ), which one expects to be a
bit larger than 0 since by adding the entropy term we have sacrificed some precision in
15
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
order to gain in stability. The Morozov discrepancy principle [29] consists in authorizing
a loss of precision that is of the same order as the a priori error by choosing α such that
0 (σ, να ) (24)
This equation need not be solved precisely: one needs simply to obtain the correct order
of magnitude for α, which is then substituted in (22) and solved to obtain the solution
of the regularized problem. Figure 2 illustrates the performance of the algorithm on a
0.5 5
simulated prior
calibrated true
4.5 calibrated
0.45
4
0.4
3.5
0.35
3
Implied volatility
0.3 2.5
0.25 2
1.5
0.2
1
0.15
0.5
0.1
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 0
Strike −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 2: Left: calibrated vs simulated (true) implied volatilities for Kou model [24]. Right: double
exponential Lévy measure used to generate data set, prior (Gaussian measure) and calibrated measure.
simulated data set: a set of 20 option prices simulated from a Kou jump–diffusion model
[24] with diffusion coefficient σ = 0.1 was used and the prior model Q0 was chosen to
be a Merton model [28] with a (biased) diffusion coefficient σ = 0.105 and a Gaussian
measure for ν0 . The left figure shows the calibration performance: implied volatilities
generated from the Kou model are retrieved to within a few basis points. The right figure
shows the reconstructed Lévy measure: the positive bias in the diffusion coefficient of
the prior is compensated by a decrease in the intensity of small jumps. This examples
illustrates several points. First, it is difficult to distinguish the effect of (small) jumps
from volatility in prices of European options. Second, a small number of options – twenty
in this example – is sufficient to retrieve the Lévy measure. Third, a bias/error in the
estimation of volatility is compensated for by an opposite bias in the intensity of small
jumps, resulting in a precise fit of option prices.
7 PERSPECTIVES
The incorporation of jumps into option pricing models has led to models a more realistic
vision of financial risk. The use of these models, initially hampered by the lack of suitable
computational methods, has been substantially eased in recent years by the availability
of efficient numerical methods: for exponential Lévy models, efficient numerical methods
16
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
have been developed for pricing European and exotic options and calibration of model
parameters.
A richer class of models, interesting for applications, is the class of stochastic volatility
models with jumps.4 While Fourier–based methods can still be applied for pricing Eu-
ropean options in such models, efficient numerical methods for calibration and pricing of
exotic options remain to be developed.
Another direction where many modelling and computational issues remain is multi-
asset models with jumps. While the computational finance literature has primarily focused
on one–dimensional problems, most applications concern multidimensional ones: multi-
asset options, interest rate options and portfolio optimization. We hope that some readers
will become sufficiently interested to delve into these subjects!
REFERENCES
[1] O. Alvarez and A. Tourin, Viscosity solutions of non-linear integro-differential
equations, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré, 13 (1996), pp. 293–317.
[6] D. Bates, Jumps and stochastic volatility: the exchange rate processes implicit in
Deutschemark options, Rev. Fin. Studies, 9 (1996), pp. 69–107.
[8] P. Carr, H. Geman, D. Madan, and M. Yor, The fine structure of asset
returns: An empirical investigation, Journal of Business, 75 (2002).
[9] P. Carr and D. Madan, Option valuation using the fast Fourier transform, J.
Comput. Finance, 2 (1998), pp. 61–73.
4
For a review, see [11, Chap. 14] and [5, 6, 30].
17
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
[10] R. Cont, J.-P. Bouchaud, and M. Potters, Scaling in financial data: Sta-
ble laws and beyond, in Scale Invariance and Beyond, B. Dubrulle, F. Graner, and
D. Sornette, eds., Springer, Berlin, 1997.
[11] R. Cont and P. Tankov, Financial modelling with jump processes, Chapman &
Hall / CRC Press, 2003.
[13] , Retrieving exponential–lévy models from option prices using relative entropy,
Rapport interne CMAP, Ecole Polytechnique, 2004.
[14] R. Cont and E. Voltchkova, Finite difference methods for option pricing in
jump-diffusion and exponential Lévy models, Rapport Interne 513, CMAP, Ecole
Polytechnique, 2003.
[16] M. Crandall, H. Ishii, and P. Lions, Users guide to viscosity solutions of second
order partial differential equations, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society,
27 (1992), pp. 1–42.
[18] E. Eberlein, U. Keller, and K. Prause, New insights into smile, mispricing
and Value at Risk: The hyperbolic model, Journal of Business, 71 (1998), pp. 371–405.
[21] J. Jacod and A. N. Shiryaev, Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes, Springer,
Berlin, 2nd ed., 2002.
18
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
[24] S. Kou, A jump-diffusion model for option pricing, Management Science, 48 (2002),
pp. 1086–1101.
[26] D. Madan and F. Milne, Option pricing with variance gamma martingale com-
ponents, Math. Finance, 1 (1991), pp. 39–55.
[28] R. Merton, Option pricing when underlying stock returns are discontinuous, J.
Financial Economics, 3 (1976), pp. 125–144.
[33] S. Rong, On solutions of backward stochastic differential equations with jumps and
applications, Stochastic Process. Appl., 66 (1997), pp. 209–236.
[34] K. Sato, Lévy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999.
[35] A. Sayah, Equations d’Hamilton Jacobi du premier ordre avec termes integro-
differentiels, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 16 (1991), pp. 1057–1093.
19
Cont et al: Option pricing models with jumps
[37] H. Soner, Jump Markov Processes and Viscosity Solutions, vol. 10 of IMA Volumes
in mathematics and applications, Springer Verlag, New York, 1986, pp. 501–511.
20